S.F. murder conviction overturned — judge tossed holdout juror

A man convicted of first-degree murder in the 1991 rape and stabbing of a San Francisco woman in her Richmond District home had his conviction tossed by a state appeals court that ruled the trial in the cold-case killing was mishandled.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said the judge in the 2013 trial improperly removed a juror who was holding out for acquittal during deliberations, allowing an alternate juror to take part in the conviction and sentencing to a life term of Otis Hughes.

Hughes, now 63, was accused of breaking into the 47th Avenue home of Karen Wong, a 39-year-old political activist and San Francisco Opera employee, where he allegedly tied her up, sexually assaulted her and killed her with a kitchen knife. He remains in custody until a decision is made about a potential retrial.

Alex Bastian, spokesman for the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, said Tuesday that his office was reviewing the recent ruling and exploring options on how to proceed.

Prosecutors charged Hughes with murder 17 years after Wong’s death. He was serving an unrelated burglary sentence and, upon release, provided a DNA sample to investigators who matched it the 1991 crime scene, landing Hughes back behind bars, authorities said.

Prosecutors said the 25-year-old crime had all the markings of Hughes’ previous burglaries: He allegedly targeted residential buildings where people were present and used knives to threaten victims. Wong’s brother found her half-naked body on Feb. 27, 1991, under a blanket in her study.

In court, Hughes’ attorney maintained his client’s innocence, suggesting that Wong’s boyfriend might be to blame. The jury, though, convicted Hughes of first-degree murder with the special circumstance of killing in the commission of rape. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Monday’s 28-page appellate decision, though, said Superior Court Judge Ksenia Tsenin should have declared a mistrial instead of substituting in an alternate juror. The person who was dismissed had caused the jury to deadlock — with an 11-1 vote to convict — after five days of deliberations.

After some jurors questioned the holdout’s motives, Tsenin interviewed the juror, who claimed his colleagues had made up their minds prematurely and were unwilling to hear his objections. The judge determined that the holdout had refused to satisfactorily deliberate with his colleagues and had inappropriately discussed his jury service with a friend.

After a new juror was appointed, a unanimous conviction was handed down.